Table 8 Drone public acceptance studies... | Emerald Publishing

Table 8

Drone public acceptance studies

Article	Sample	Country (city)	Study focus	Relevant key findings
General public
Kellermann and Fischer (2020)	5 focus groups of residents	Germany (Berlin, Stuttgart, Erfurt)	Drones for parcel/passenger transport	While most residents were ambivalent on drone deliveries, issues such as safety, security, sustainability and usefulness were raised
Troug et al. (2020)	450 residents	Malawi, Mozambique, D.R. Congo, D. Republic	Drones for medical deliveries	While residents believed in the importance of drones in medical emergencies, concerns about drones crashing and damaging property/payloads were stressed across all countries
Zhu et al. (2020)	1,465 residents	USA	Risk beliefs of drones in LMD	11 risk beliefs were linked to different risk belief systems. Risk-mitigating messages targeting central risk beliefs were more effective in changing public risk perceptions
Serrano-Hernandez et al. (2021)	107 residents	Spain (Pamplona)	Drone deliveries in smart cities	Residents preferred it if drones took routes surrounding the city center instead of crossing it, attributing this to factors related to life quality, pedestrian safety and noise pollution
Buko et al. (2022)	267 residents	Poland (Dobra)	Drones vs delivery couriers for LMD	Social skepticism about drone deliveries reached 43% among the sample
Potential receivers
Kim (2020)	400 online consumers	South Korea	Drone vs traditional modes for LMD	Consumers' preference was impacted by item specs (e.g. price, type) and socio-demographics (e.g. gender, age, income) – younger individuals opt for drone deliveries
Kim and Hwang (2020)	401 online food consumers	South Korea	Drones for food deliveries	Consumers' knowledge about the benefits of drone deliveries impacted acceptance levels
Leon et al. (2021)	617 online consumers	USA	Drones for LMD	Increased perceived privacy risk reduced acceptance of drone deliveries. Legislation, usefulness and trust were key factors affecting such acceptance
Merkert et al. (2022)*	709 online consumers	Australia	Innovative vs traditional LMD	Consumers still preferred a traditional “postie” over drone deliveries, considering factors like delivery speed, time window and safety
Polydoropoulou et al. (2022)*	336 online consumers	Greece	Mode choice for sustainable LMD	Consumers had “no interest” in drone deliveries, nor were they willing to pay extra for them
Jasim et al. (2022)	209 online food consumers	Malaysia (Kajang)	Drones for food deliveries	A significant relationship was found between consumer behavioral intention and acceptance of drones for food deliveries
Borghetti et al. (2022)	100 consumers	Italy (Milan)	Drones vs other modes for LMD	Participants favored drone deliveries as these would lower the number of vans circulating (thus reducing congestions, accidents and pollution)
Potential senders and receivers
Michael et al. (2019)	200 healthcare workers	Nigeria	Drones for vaccine deliveries	Despite limited knowledge about the technology, workers perceived drones as highly feasible for vaccine deliveries
Holzmann et al. (2021)	146 mountain rescuers	Alps Region	Drones for mountain rescue missions	Adopting drone deliveries for mountain rescue missions relied on performance gains, facilitating conditions and favorable supporting conditions. Experience with drones influenced this relationship
Sham et al. (2022)	272 healthcare workers	Malaysia (Perak, Selangor, Sarawak)	Drones for vaccine deliveries during Covid-19 (rural areas)	>50% of the sample commended drone use for medicine/vaccine deliveries in rural areas. Such preferences correlated with drones' potentials (e.g. speed, compatibility, low complexity, environmental friendliness)
Valencia-Arias et al. (2022)	121 delivery professionals	Colombia (Medellín)	Drone for LMD during Covid-19	Performance risk, compatibility, personal innovativeness and relative advantage of environmental friendliness were the most influential factors on intentions to use drone deliveries (mediated by attitude towards the technology)

Article	Sample	Country (city)	Study focus	Relevant key findings
General public
Kellermann and Fischer (2020)	5 focus groups of residents	Germany (Berlin, Stuttgart, Erfurt)	Drones for parcel/passenger transport	While most residents were ambivalent on drone deliveries, issues such as safety, security, sustainability and usefulness were raised
Troug et al. (2020)	450 residents	Malawi, Mozambique, D.R. Congo, D. Republic	Drones for medical deliveries	While residents believed in the importance of drones in medical emergencies, concerns about drones crashing and damaging property/payloads were stressed across all countries
Zhu et al. (2020)	1,465 residents	USA	Risk beliefs of drones in LMD	11 risk beliefs were linked to different risk belief systems. Risk-mitigating messages targeting central risk beliefs were more effective in changing public risk perceptions
Serrano-Hernandez et al. (2021)	107 residents	Spain (Pamplona)	Drone deliveries in smart cities	Residents preferred it if drones took routes surrounding the city center instead of crossing it, attributing this to factors related to life quality, pedestrian safety and noise pollution
Buko et al. (2022)	267 residents	Poland (Dobra)	Drones vs delivery couriers for LMD	Social skepticism about drone deliveries reached 43% among the sample
Potential receivers
Kim (2020)	400 online consumers	South Korea	Drone vs traditional modes for LMD	Consumers' preference was impacted by item specs (e.g. price, type) and socio-demographics (e.g. gender, age, income) – younger individuals opt for drone deliveries
Kim and Hwang (2020)	401 online food consumers	South Korea	Drones for food deliveries	Consumers' knowledge about the benefits of drone deliveries impacted acceptance levels
Leon et al. (2021)	617 online consumers	USA	Drones for LMD	Increased perceived privacy risk reduced acceptance of drone deliveries. Legislation, usefulness and trust were key factors affecting such acceptance
Merkert et al. (2022)*	709 online consumers	Australia	Innovative vs traditional LMD	Consumers still preferred a traditional “postie” over drone deliveries, considering factors like delivery speed, time window and safety
Polydoropoulou et al. (2022)*	336 online consumers	Greece	Mode choice for sustainable LMD	Consumers had “no interest” in drone deliveries, nor were they willing to pay extra for them
Jasim et al. (2022)	209 online food consumers	Malaysia (Kajang)	Drones for food deliveries	A significant relationship was found between consumer behavioral intention and acceptance of drones for food deliveries
Borghetti et al. (2022)	100 consumers	Italy (Milan)	Drones vs other modes for LMD	Participants favored drone deliveries as these would lower the number of vans circulating (thus reducing congestions, accidents and pollution)
Potential senders and receivers
Michael et al. (2019)	200 healthcare workers	Nigeria	Drones for vaccine deliveries	Despite limited knowledge about the technology, workers perceived drones as highly feasible for vaccine deliveries
Holzmann et al. (2021)	146 mountain rescuers	Alps Region	Drones for mountain rescue missions	Adopting drone deliveries for mountain rescue missions relied on performance gains, facilitating conditions and favorable supporting conditions. Experience with drones influenced this relationship
Sham et al. (2022)	272 healthcare workers	Malaysia (Perak, Selangor, Sarawak)	Drones for vaccine deliveries during Covid-19 (rural areas)	>50% of the sample commended drone use for medicine/vaccine deliveries in rural areas. Such preferences correlated with drones' potentials (e.g. speed, compatibility, low complexity, environmental friendliness)
Valencia-Arias et al. (2022)	121 delivery professionals	Colombia (Medellín)	Drone for LMD during Covid-19	Performance risk, compatibility, personal innovativeness and relative advantage of environmental friendliness were the most influential factors on intentions to use drone deliveries (mediated by attitude towards the technology)

Note(s):*Applied experimental survey design.

Acceptance of potential senders and receivers are included in Table 8 since they count as part of societies

Source(s): Created by authors